Reese Nguyen was quoted in "Fed. Circ. Takes Hard Look At Google Eye Movement IP," an article in Law360,* regarding the argument that Patent Trial and Appeal Board misread the prior art in affirming an examiner's rejection of a patent application assigned to the tech giant.

Google attorney Reese Nguyen, said during a 30-minute telephone hearing that, unlike the invention at issue, the earlier publications did not say how a device would detect the vestibulo-ocular reflex, which stabilizes vision during head movement, and so there was no basis for the board's decision.

Reese said the issue for the court to hone in on is that the prior art does not reflect what's in the claims, and so the board could not have reasonably concluded that the examiner was right to reject them as being obvious in light of the two earlier publications.

*Subscription-based publication